Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Off-Topic Tech
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-27-2020, 03:29 AM   #31 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Ecky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 3,949

Gaptooth (retired) - '00 Honda Insight
Team Honda
Gen-1 Insights
90 day: 54.26 mpg (US)

Such Fit - '07 Honda Fit Sport
90 day: 41.27 mpg (US)

Connect - '15 Ford Transit Connect XL
90 day: 23.78 mpg (US)

K-sight - '00 Honda K-sight
Team Honda
90 day: 42.99 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,706
Thanked 1,670 Times in 1,065 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gasoline Fumes View Post
I see as high as 30-31 degrees in lean burn on my ScanGauge.
And if you drop out of lean burn with the same throttle position?

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 05-27-2020, 09:56 AM   #32 (permalink)
Too many cars
 
Gasoline Fumes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York State
Posts: 1,329

CRXFi - '88 Honda CRX XFi

Insight 256 - '00 Honda Insight
Team Honda
Gen-1 Insights

Insight 5342 - '00 Honda Insight
Team Honda
Gen-1 Insights
90 day: 64.18 mpg (US)
Thanks: 794
Thanked 608 Times in 359 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecky View Post
And if you drop out of lean burn with the same throttle position?
I'll check to be sure, but maybe 12 or so. Any more throttle and it quickly goes negative.
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2020, 03:29 AM   #33 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 905
Thanks: 192
Thanked 320 Times in 225 Posts
An interesting tidbid.

When you look at the graph on the first post, you notice the NOx spike just past the 16:1 AFR? That air to fuel ratio is your most economical mixture. It is the mixture that provides the most useful cylinder pressure for the least fuel burned. Why is that? It is because flame speed is still high and there is the additional "fuel" value of some of the nitrogen oxidizing! More power through pollution!

If nitrogen was not such a "lazy" reactant and required temperatures approaching 2300 deg C to oxidize, we would be able to use it as a fuel!

On the other hand, some of the builders of the first nuclear bomb had a fear that the fission explosion would set the atmosphere on fire. The nitrogen all oxidizing into NOx due to the temperature extremes caused by the nuclear fire. The physicists knew better and were not bothered, but lesser minds ran with the idea.

Last edited by RustyLugNut; 06-03-2020 at 03:31 AM.. Reason: Additional.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2020, 03:50 PM   #34 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 1,435

spyder2 - '00 Toyota MR2 Spyder
Thanks: 89
Thanked 267 Times in 204 Posts
With California smog you're supposed to put all the stock parts back on, duh :P

At 18:1, you're losing around 20% of laminar flame velocity which sounds like a lot but it's not that many crank degrees. One idea is to look at the timing at a lower load value: if 50% load is -30 deg and 40% load is -35, I think -35 would be approximately in the ballpark. A lean mixture has higher thermal mass, but also a higher reaction rate due to more O2, and the two factors should cancel each other out in theory.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to serialk11r For This Useful Post:
Ecky (06-03-2020)
Old 06-03-2020, 10:09 PM   #35 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 905
Thanks: 192
Thanked 320 Times in 225 Posts
Can you clarify some statements?

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialk11r View Post
At 18:1, you're losing around 20% of laminar flame velocity which sounds like a lot but it's not that many crank degrees. . . . . A lean mixture has higher thermal mass, but also a higher reaction rate due to more O2, and the two factors should cancel each other out in theory.
I agree that flame velocity is slower with increasingly lean mixtures but you then say it has higher thermal mass? And higher reaction rate? Remember, you have less fuel to provide the heat.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2020, 10:40 PM   #36 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 1,435

spyder2 - '00 Toyota MR2 Spyder
Thanks: 89
Thanked 267 Times in 204 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut View Post
I agree that flame velocity is slower with increasingly lean mixtures but you then say it has higher thermal mass? And higher reaction rate? Remember, you have less fuel to provide the heat.
Yes. This is comparing the same quantity of fuel, but more air (higher load, higher MAP).



There is excess air that absorbs heat. Same quantity of fuel => same quantity of heat, but more air. That decreases alpha.

There is excess oxygen. Reaction rate is proportional to concentration^order, you're increasing oxygen concentration while keeping fuel concentration the same, since the cylinder is still the same volume but you have higher partial pressure of oxygen. That increases omega (with the dot over it).

Going from 1.0 to 1.2 lambda isn't a massive change all things considered, so assuming the effects cancel out is approximately correct. You can always use less timing advance to be safe.

Side note: In the case of adding EGR, reaction rate is not affected much since the concentration of CO and NO is tiny, but you're also raising the temperature considerably which speeds up the reaction.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2020, 03:54 PM   #37 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 905
Thanks: 192
Thanked 320 Times in 225 Posts
I have a question about a definition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serialk11r View Post
Yes. This is comparing the same quantity of fuel, but more air (higher load, higher MAP).



There is excess air that absorbs heat. Same quantity of fuel => same quantity of heat, but more air. That decreases alpha.

There is excess oxygen. Reaction rate is proportional to concentration^order, you're increasing oxygen concentration while keeping fuel concentration the same, since the cylinder is still the same volume but you have higher partial pressure of oxygen. That increases omega (with the dot over it).

Going from 1.0 to 1.2 lambda isn't a massive change all things considered, so assuming the effects cancel out is approximately correct. You can always use less timing advance to be safe.

Side note: In the case of adding EGR, reaction rate is not affected much since the concentration of CO and NO is tiny, but you're also raising the temperature considerably which speeds up the reaction.
Concentration.

Omega naught is proportional to the concentration of reactants. In one instance, you are reducing one reactant ( gasoline ). On the other hand you are keeping the oxidizer concentration ( oxygen ) constant. Omega naught will be smaller.

Also, you are ignoring the other variable. Temperature. With less fuel and more air, T(sub b) is smaller ( the flame front burns at a lower temperature ). The temperature relation in the parentheses will be smaller.

At just this side of lean lambda, it is known that burn rate increases. But it rapidly falls off. I worked with three Chrysler vehicles and their lean burn systems. A four, six and V8. At 18:1 AFR, all of them needed quite a bit of ignition advance (60 DCA before TDC, average). However, you are correct in that the addition of EGR increased flame speed and ignition advance could be pulled back to 35-45 BTDC.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com